The Chinese Special Unit: Why A Mounted Unit for China? A possible answer...

[yin26]

The question has been raised: "Why a mounted unit for China? Clearly the knights of Europe best depict such a unit."

In my rather brief but interesting research, I have come to the following conclusion: Firaxis chose a mounted unit for China primarily to represent China's invention of the stirrup and the use of heavy armor and weapons it made possible. If Lynn White, in his Medieval Technology and Social Change, is to be believed, the feudal class of the European Middle Ages derived ultimately from the stirrup.

Thus, we can say, the mounted knights in Europe and all the substantial military and social effects they would have in the Middle Ages owe themselves to stirrup-mounted units first used in ancient China.

So while we might not associate China FIRST with the image of the mounted warrior, it would seem that historically speaking, Firaxis' choice is a solid ...if perhaps 'overly historic'... decision. Personally, I rather like having the unit placed in such an historical context, though others might well be forever smitten with the image of a mounted European.

Some more backgrond quoted from various sources:

The stirrup arrived in Europe during the 3rd and 4th century, by way of India, where it was used since the 1st century AD. The earliest known use of the stirrup was in China, several centuries before it showed up in India...these older techniques, combined with the stirrup, made the mounted warrior quite secure in the saddle, especially if carrying a big load of armor and weapons.

The stirrup has been claimed to be of enormous consequence in the history of warfare and, indeed, in social and institutional history. Lynn White, in his very provocative treatment of the stirrup, says its introduction marked the third significant phase in the use of the horse in battle, the first two phases being the chariot and the mounted rider. The stirrup was important because it provided the rider with a secure seat and enabled the horseman to become a better archer and swordsman; more importantly, it made possible the effective use of the lance in the charge. No longer was the rider in danger of being lifted from his horse on impact. The stirrup, therefore, "made possible mounted shock combat, a revolutionary way of doing battle."

One of the new developments of this time was the widespread use of horse armor, or bardings...The conjunction of stirrups and bardings is probably not fortuitous, and it may well have been the increasing use of armored cavalry that provided the incentive and favorable environment for the development and widespread use of the stirrup.

The emergence of the armored cavalryman had an important impact on the nature of warfare in China. The first effect was to give the nomad horseman a new importance, and the nomad dominance of North China in these years is perhaps to be attributed to the nomad's skill in using this new military weapon.

Finally, a very interesting question is posted and perhaps answered here.

Why, if the stirrup brought feudalism to Europe, did the same thing not happen in China? Joseph Needham, in considering this problem, has recourse to the "astonishing stability" of Chinese civilization, which is "so deeply civilian in its ethics that the very conception of aristocratic chivalry was perhaps impossible." The answer, rather, is to be found in the developments described above. In China the bureaucratic apparatus existed to administer the resources of the state down to a relatively low level.'"" There was little need to "broker" central power on a regional basis in order to acquire the needed resources. "Local troops" were a kind of brokered product--rank was given in exchange for the service of these personal followers, but only at the local level. The recruitment of Chinese into the centralized army gave the Northern Zhou and its successors, the Sui and the Tang, the military advantage over their rivals. The advanced bureaucratic techniques of the Chinese state enabled this recruitment to remain under centralized control--there was no need for power to be brokered by middlemen as was the case in Europe...The stirrup and the heavy armor that it made possible, therefore, seem to have had very different consequences from those which emerged in Europe.

I hope this was helpful.

[Harlan]

One problem with this: the stirrup most likely originated with the steppe nomads to the north and west of China, not in China proper. For instance, here's www.britannica.com's take on this:

"Stirrups probably originated in the Asian steppes about the 2nd century BC. They enormously increased the military value of the horse."

www.encyclopedia.com says of the stirrup:

"probably they had their origin in central Asia"

The peoples of the steppes of Central Asia were the first to domesticate the horse, first to ride horses (by at least 1000 years before anyone else), first to shoot arrows from the back of a horse, etc, so its hardly surprising if they were the first the develop the stirrup (though its hard to really know since they weren't exactly keeping records on the steppes back then).

If you take the Chinese civilization as encompassing groups like the Hsiung-nu, Oighurs, and the Mongols, then they deserve the Rider unit. If you take a more restrictive unit and think the Mongols should have had their own civilization, then they don't. Needless to say, I take the later view.

[yin26]

Yes, that is an interesting point. I agree that Firaxis' choice needs more explanation from Firaxis itself.

[yin26]

The Firaxis site says:

China leads the world in terms of horse population, having nearly 11 million horses within its borders. Once the discovery of the stirrup made its way to China, heavy cavalry soon followed. As the Chinese found out first-hand when the Mongols invaded in the 12th century, it is better to have heavy calvary than to be attacked by them.

1) "Leads the world in terms of horse population." Interesting but hardly a reason to give the Rider unit itself. The United States leads the world in Bald Eagle population, too...why not make the U.S. special unit an angry bird of prey?

2) "Once the discovery of the stirrup made its way to China..." Hmm, I don't understand that statement. India did NOT discover the stirrup, so what does this mean? That it came from the Mongols, as Harlan argues? If so, why give China the Rider?

3) "...heavy cavalry soon followed." O.K. This seems to be a good point. We can say that the Mongols had the stirrup earlier, but the Chinese put it to a more modern (heavy) use.

BUT

4) "As the Chinese found out first-hand when the Mongols invaded in the 12th century, it is better to have heavy calvary than to be attacked by them." Again, this seems to suggest that the Mongols really had it on the Chinese first.

CONCLUSION: Firaxis' reasonings here are weak at best. I have tried to give a plausible reason myself, but even I am wavering on that now. Questionable call, I'd say.

[Harlan]

By the way,
The reason many people think the Chinese invented the stirrup is that that's the first place it shows up in written records. So unfortunately that belief persists sometimes. Once these perceptions become widely established, they're very hard to change. For instance, the notion that the compass, gunpowder, printing press, etc were invented in the West and not in China is still all too widespread, cos that's where they first entered into Western civilization's records.

White had some good ideas, but the one you quote was not one of them. His stirrup theory is generally considered debunked by most scholars these days. A review of the controversy can be found here: http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/~tekpage.../strpcont.html

[yin26]

Printing press was invented in Korea...but I have a whole thread on that topic! LOL! Anyway, people think it was invented in China for the same reasons as the stirrup perhaps.

[Harlan]

China leading the world in horse population today is laughably irrelevant to whether they deserve a special horse unit from hundreds of years ago. The reason China has so many horses now is because A) today China largely controls the regions held by their northern barbarian neighbors for most of history, like Inner Mongolia, Manchuria and Takla Makan and Dzungaria, and B) China is a huge country with a huge population of many things. If all of Europe were one country, they might have the most horses in the world probably.

The fact that they had to grope for this weak stat shows how little justification there is for the unit. The fact that they could come up with no better name than "Rider" is another.

And sorry yes, printing press is from Korea. Sloppy generalizing on my part.

[yin26]

Yes, without further justification, putting that one in there seems to undermine the case more than help it. As a final tack-on statement after making a solid case, it would make an interesting point, but to have it as an opening line is unfortunate.

[Urban Ranger]

Nope, printing press was not from Korea. However, the first movable metal type press was.

Now back to the topic. In the murky recesses of my brain I vaguely remembered something about the collar harness. A short search on the Web reveals the following (attributed to Joseph Needham):

The Horse Collar: China. Third Century BC. About the fourth century BC the Chinese devised a harness with a breast strap known as the trace harness, modified approximately one hundred later into the collar harness. Unlike the throat-and-girth harness used in the West, which choked a horse and reduced its efficiency (it took two horses to haul a half a ton), the collar harness allowed a single horse to haul a ton and a half. The trace harness arrived in Europe in the sixth century and made its way across Europe by the eighth century.

[monkspider]

It's possible that China was awarded a special mounted unit simply because there was nothing better to give them. They have no military unit that the masses can immediately identify with them. The Japanese have their Samurai, and the Greeks their Hoplite, but the chinese have nothing so tightly attached to them, at least in the eyes of those who haven't studied Chinese history to a great extent. It's possible that, although they may be rather loose and flimsy, the historical references that Firaxis makes regarding early mongol invasions and the large populations of horses do make the rider about the best choice possible for a Chinese UU.

[yin26]

Nope, printing press was not from Korea. However, the first movable metal type press was.

Off-topic response: The controversy about the first printing press stems from the discovery of the oldest wood-block printed document ever found, located in Korea in 1966 as the result of an accident repairing a pagoda. The top cracked off and inside was found the Darani Sutra...the oldest printed document found to date. Click the quote below to see one source:

The oldest known woodblock printing in the world is Darani Sutra found insde Seokga Pagoda of Bulguksa Temple in 1966. Because the pagoda was built in 751 A.D., the sutra must have been printed before 751 A.D. This sutra predated japanese Million Pagoda Darani Sutra dated to 770 A.D.

Now, the Chinese and even Japanese have come up with all kinds of odd theories on how that document actually came from their country, etc., but even a number of Chinese scholars attests that the particular stroke style was in vogue in Korea at that time and not China or Japan.

Of course, a new discovery could turn all this up-side down, but this is where things stand. Ain't history fun.

[Urban Ranger]

Off topic

Yin26,

My sources indicate that woodblock printing in China was invented during the Sui dynasty (581-618CE).

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Harlan
White had some good ideas, but the one you quote was not one of them. His stirrup theory is generally considered debunked by most scholars these days. A review of the controversy can be found here: http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/~tekpage.../strpcont.html

The link provide mainly deals with the question of whether the stirrup led to feudalism. It does not debunk the concept that the stirrup marked the third significant phase in the use of horses in warfare, the first two being chariot and mounted rider.

As for whether a Chinese person invented the stirrup, or whether it came from some obscure nomadic tribe, is this really important? There is general agreement that the Chinese were the first "civ" to use the stirrup. That would give their calvalry an edge over other mounted troops.

[Harlan]

Tingkai,
Read the whole webpage. The thesis is: "At present it seems clear that stirrups did not cause the invention of feudalism, and, in fact, they seem to be a convenience and not a necessity for mounted shock warfare." That's not to say they were merely ornamental, but that they were one part of a puzzle, other pieces being the high pommel and cantle, training, and larger breeds of horses. There is another page on the debate at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/sloan.html

To me it is important who discovered (and widely used) the stirrup first, because it is yet one more indication to me that the Chinese never had a superior cavalry compared to those of their immediate neighbors. I think those neighbors were different enough and significant enough in history to deserve their own civ, and the poll on civs show them as one of the most missed civs in the game. What you're saying is like saying "what does it matter who invented mobilized tank warfare first, the French or Germans? They were both in Europe so its close enough for horseshoes. Let the Panzer unit be the French unit."

And Monkspider, I agree that a problem is that an obvious Chinese unit doesn't leap forward in many people's minds, but that's no excuse to make the Rider unit. The Crossbowman has been the Chinese unique unit in other games, like AOE. And it would suit Firaxis' gameplay purposes perfectly, since the crossbow was more of a defensive unit than offensive, and great at defending cities and at sieges. The Rider, though designed as a defensive unit, could be extremely useful for the offense, since it moves so fast. Timewise it could also fit what they've got already, as a Pikeman-plus.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Harlan
Tingkai,
Read the whole webpage. The thesis is: "At present it seems clear that stirrups did not cause the invention of feudalism, and, in fact, they seem to be a convenience and not a necessity for mounted shock warfare." That's not to say they were merely ornamental, but that they were one part of a puzzle, other pieces being the high pommel and cantle, training, and larger breeds of horses. There is another page on the debate at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/sloan.html

To me it is important who discovered (and widely used) the stirrup first, because it is yet one more indication to me that the Chinese never had a superior cavalry compared to those of their immediate neighbors. I think those neighbors were different enough and significant enough in history to deserve their own civ, and the poll on civs show them as one of the most missed civs in the game. What you're saying is like saying "what does it matter who invented mobilized tank warfare first, the French or Germans? They were both in Europe so its close enough for horseshoes. Let the Panzer unit be the French unit."

Egads, you're right. I was thinking about the wrong article, namely the link you mentioned that contained the statement "There is no question that the introduction of stirrups improved the effectiveness of cavalry."

My mistake.

Interesting analogy about tanks. The British were the first to use tanks in warfare, but it was the Germans who were the first to use tanks as a truely effective modern weapon.

If we worry only about who invented something, then the panzer should not be the unique unit for the Germans.

Even if the Chinese did not invent the stirrup, that doesn't mean they did not have superior calvalry.

On a related note, you mentioned high pommel and cantle. I seem to recall hearing that the Mongels mounted archers relied more on the high pommel and cantle for stability than the stirrup. Don't know if this is true, any comments?